Talk

Advanced search

Joanne Mjadzelics child abuse trial (title edited by MNHQ)

(36 Posts)
MoanCollins Mon 12-Jan-15 18:07:05

Has anybody been following this?

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/jury-begin-considering-verdicts-trial-8430814

Related to the horrible Ian Watkins case from 2013. Some really unpleasant stuff in there.

The verdict is probably due tomorrow. It seems like it's dependent on whether or not the jury believe she was doing it to trap him or if she was enthusiastically joining in and only reported when she got jealous he was abusing children with other women instead of her.

I'm not sure but tending towards the latter. She admitted possessing and sending all the images but later on said that she didn't remember sending them and hadn't searched for them. But if she had sent them (which she'd already admitted, but said she had a reason for) she must have found them somewhere and child porn images don't just spontaneously appear on your computer, you have to look for them. So she seems like a dishonest witness. And she was talking to him about raping and murdering babies, even if she wanted to catch him there was no reason to go that far and feed his fantasies.

The police are coming out of it very badly for not acting on her reports though.

PinkOboe Mon 12-Jan-15 18:19:39

I remember when this story first broke someone linked to a fan chat site or somesuch where years previously his predilections were being openly discussed by his fans. It seems there was a period of inaction by the police certainly.

I'm not sure where it how she fits in, I know her name or a version of it was used on that site

I stopped reading tbh. All too ghastly

AnyFucker Mon 12-Jan-15 18:27:29

Please could you not use the phrase "child porn"

cheers

MoanCollins Mon 12-Jan-15 18:46:03

Sorry Any Fucker, I genuinely don't know what the correct term is? Just had a quick look and is it supposed to be child abuse imagery? Apologies if that was offensive I had no idea it was.

MoanCollins Mon 12-Jan-15 18:46:56

It seems like the BBC amongst others use the term child porn so I'm not surprised I didn't know.

Itscurtainsforyou Mon 12-Jan-15 18:53:44

I think the term most appropriate is images of child sexual abuse as the word "porn" implies consent.

HTH

DoraGora Mon 12-Jan-15 19:00:09

I can't and won't read or study anything to do with that man. I'd stick with the simplest definitions possible. Pornography, a noun. Pornographic an adjective describing explicit or sexually explicit material for the purpose of titillation.

I'd leave implications out completely.

MarjorieMelon Mon 12-Jan-15 19:00:15

From what I have read so far she sounds guilty to me. She was actively encouraging him and seemed to be getting a kick out of it. Would a reasonable person go along with this in order to trap him?

AnyFucker Mon 12-Jan-15 19:12:14

No worries, OP. The more appropriate terms are "images of child sexual abuse" I believe.

Feenie Mon 12-Jan-15 20:48:30

There's an interesting thread on the David Icke forums about this - general consensus is she is innocent and the police are trying to cover up their own incompetence. I am inclined to go with this since it's v rare for them to insist someone isn't a paedophile on the DI forums and also because she'd have to have been pretty stupid to go the police all those times if she was guilty of the same crimes.

MoanCollins Mon 12-Jan-15 21:00:05

Yes, but I think assuming anything on the David Icke forum has any credibility goes a bit far.

In the closing speech today they said that they were talking about this daily for 10 months. He sent her 2 images of him raping a child and also admitted to her in writing that he'd raped a child in May 2011. But she didn't report it, and in fact carried on exchanging child abuse images with him. She didn't report that until Feb 2012, and even then she just gave them the images and not the confession. It seems like she only reported him when he lost interest in her because she didn't have a baby he could abuse and other women did.

Feenie Mon 12-Jan-15 21:03:45

Yes, but I think assuming anything on the David Icke forum has any credibility goes a bit far.

So said everyone before the Savile exposure.

TwinkieTwinkle Mon 12-Jan-15 21:15:07

Been following this very closely since the start. I was a big Lostprophets fan and was shocked when it came out about Ian Watkins. Initially I was in full support of this woman, until I saw her attitudes on twitter to people, was shown screen grabs of things she had said over the years. Her selling that photo to the Daily Mirror was the tipping point for me. In my opinion she i guilty as sin, she wanted to hold onto him, any way possible.

Incidentally, that David Icke forum: she would post on it trying to make it sound like she had supporters. The woman is genuinely crackers, fake profiles, fantasy life, very odd.

MoanCollins Mon 12-Jan-15 21:47:13

Savile was everywhere though. It was an open secret for years.

There was a huge thread about Savile on Digital Spy years and years before he died and Digital Spy is a well balanced well run forum.

Yes they did pick up on a lot of sexual abuse stuff before it hit mainstream news, but they also think that it is committed by people who are lizards.

Twinkie, that's the picture of the little girl with the cocaine on a picture right? I agree, that was pretty low to sell that. The little girl was fairly identifiable too.

WillBeatJanuaryBlues Mon 12-Jan-15 21:51:55

agree its not child porn its child abuse images, but dont worry smile you were not to know....

its too shocking I cant listen or follow this one.

TwinkieTwinkle Mon 12-Jan-15 21:59:45

Yup. Her bull of 'saving children' was well and truly fucked at that point. What person in their right mind would sell a photo to a paper of an easily identified child. She could have easily shown it to the journalist and they could have confirmed its existence, but that wouldn't have been any where near as much attention for her. The verdict tomorrow will be interesting, I think it must be a difficult one for a jury to decide.

maggiethemagpie Mon 12-Jan-15 23:47:24

I think she is probably guilty. I mean, sounds like she got off on turning him on whether or not she as actually turned on by the material herself which I really don't like to think she was.

Only1scoop Mon 12-Jan-15 23:49:47

I remember her interviews and the fact she said it had been reported....
How the reports were not investigated

All seems very sinister though.

MoanCollins Tue 13-Jan-15 12:01:59

Mumsnet are going to change the title so it no longer contains the term which people find offensive.

TheOnlyOliviaMumsnet (MNHQ) Tue 13-Jan-15 16:54:57

hi there
We've amended the title of this thread.
Thanks MNHQ

AnyFucker Tue 13-Jan-15 17:22:06

thanks Olivia

Feenie Wed 14-Jan-15 19:09:31

Cleared of all charges then.

I did think that a guilty person would never go to the police on all those occasions. She also contacted social services twice and contacted the father of one victim. Guilty people don't tend to do any of those things.

PuffinsAreFictitious Wed 14-Jan-15 19:44:32

Cleared

She reported what she was doing, at least 2 police forces and social services departments seemed to have been uninterested. Maybe, if they had investigated when she first reported him in 2008, babies and children would have been saved from being raped and otherwise sexually abused by this man.

She went about hings all arse about face, but then, if you knew someone was sexually abusing children, and was planning to sexually abuse babies, reported it and no one did anything, what lengths might you go to to protect them?

Odd case all round.

AnyFucker Wed 14-Jan-15 20:17:49

I find it very odd

I saw her outside court saying she "did if for the kids, just her against the world"

er, really ?

Feenie Wed 14-Jan-15 20:22:43

So many people would not listen to her though. I agree she went to extraordinary lengths, but she really did try to tell somebody, on multiple occasions - IW's mother is another one of the list.

She must have thought she would go mad with the injustice of it all.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: